Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, PunishmentOfLuxury said:

This will be a jury trial. The SEC demanded it and will get it

The sec doesn’t make that decision. Lol

tbink about how flimsy your case must be if you demand average lay people jury trial for an unprecedented technology they couldn’t possibly understand . 

Edited by Finesse
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I need to clarify this after some more thinking about the topic and having listened to a number of different views on the issue. Just to go back to what Hellerstein said in the Kik judgement: T

https://ripple.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Ripple-Wells-Submission-Summary.pdf Summary of Ripple’s Wells Submission I. Introduction A. The SEC’s theory, that XRP is an investment c

Ripple needs to show that XRP is not a security by demonstrating that the Howey test does not apply to XRP. They will probably also try any other legal manoeuvre available to chip away at the evidence

7 minutes ago, PunishmentOfLuxury said:

The SEC has an absolute right to a jury trial:

 

Crafted party exception, this is a groundbreaking technology that needs expert assessment and testimony all the way including those making the judgement . The sec knows this and would like a standard jury trial because most people trust the gov knows best in sociology and they would have a more favorable judgement when this is CLEARLY not a freaking share in ripple

 

man im getting bullish, just bought some more. 

Edited by Finesse
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Finesse said:

Crafted party exception, this is a groundbreaking technology that needs expert assessment and testimony all the way including those making the judgement . The sec knows this and would like a standard jury trial because most people trust the gov knows best in sociology and they would have a more favorable judgement when this is CLEARLY not a freaking share in ripple

 

man im getting bullish, just bought some more. 

https://grandjurytarget.com/2016/09/19/the-secs-right-to-a-jury-trial/

Seems to me that the Crafty Party exception only applies where the Plaintiff elects for bench trial first, then tries to change to jury trial because things didn't go their way. The SEC is going for jury trial from the start.

Edited by PunishmentOfLuxury
Link to post
Share on other sites

The SEC also have access to & take social media very seriously, and what they see here is that most commenters show that they depended on ripple, and are now deeply upset and publicly putting the blame on ripple.

playing right into SEC hands.

as I said earlier xrpchat = judge jury & executioner,

you have done the SEC proud.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PunishmentOfLuxury said:

https://grandjurytarget.com/2016/09/19/the-secs-right-to-a-jury-trial/

Seems to me that the Crafty Party exception only applies where the Plaintiff elects for bench trial first, then tries to change to jury trial because things didn't go their way. The SEC is going for jury trial from the start.

Ahh seems you are right my friend good catch. 
well if they deserve that right I see no problem. It is unfortunate if it goes all the way. Who knows though the people could side with ripples lawyers even if average. If vetted for exp I would feel more confident.

if it goes all the way and let’s say jury comes back and says yea ripple you violated the securities act. Cool.

appeal , with a claim the sec doesn’t have jurisdiction because xrp is not a security. 
 

hopefully a judge sees through this with expert testimony and drops the case , as since this is groundbreaking new tech we need to dive into if it is a security before we see if they have violated the securities act , no? 
 

this should be interesting. I’m bullish myself will continue to buy as it drops. And if I’m right , wel life is good. If not like a smart guy here said, im ok with losing all I’ve invested .

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, paym8 said:

The SEC also have access to & take social media very seriously, and what they see here is that most commenters show that they depended on ripple, and are now deeply upset and publicly putting the blame on ripple.

playing right into SEC hands.

as I said earlier xrpchat = judge jury & executioner,

you have done the SEC proud.

 

 

 

Yea but the courts have ruled before in precedent that it is not what the buyers thought that matters , it’s how it was sold and pitched that matters . 
 

ripple isn’t responsible for private individuals some possibly not even citizens of the us or good faith actors lol come on man

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, xrp-nuke said:

So, what date in callendar do we expect first moves and what they will be about?

Well I would assume ripple will try to get the case dropped 

if that doesn’t work then discovery period will begin , there will be a court date set if it hasn’t already been for the first hearing 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Finesse said:

Well I would assume ripple will try to get the case dropped 

if that doesn’t work then discovery period will begin , there will be a court date set if it hasn’t already been for the first hearing 

Do you have a rough idea of time it all takes? I know it will be speculative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, xrp-nuke said:

Do you have a rough idea of time it all takes? I know it will be speculative.

No idea but I’m hopeful the case will be dropped because the lawsuit just honestly states how they were in violation of the securities act 

but when did the sec get to decide what is a security . I hope ripple sues for damages. I hope as xrp holders we are able to file a class action lawsuit against the sec for damages with this frivolous lawsuit. 
 

but I have no time table if it doesn’t get dropped

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2020 at 3:28 AM, Julian_Williams said:

https://ripple.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Ripple-Wells-Submission-Summary.pdf

Summary of Ripple’s Wells Submission I.

Introduction

A. The SEC’s theory, that XRP is an investment contract, is wrong on the facts, the law and the equities.

B. To prove its case amounts to an unprecedented and ill-conceived expansion of the Howey test and the SEC’s enforcement authority against digital assets.

C. The SEC’s theory that XRP is an investment contract ignores the economic reality that XRP is, and has long been, a digital asset with a fully functional ecosystem and a real use case as a bridge currency that does not rely on Ripple’s efforts for its functionality or price. D. XRP is a currency. XRP is similar to bitcoin and ether, which the SEC has determined are not securities.

  1.   By alleging that Ripple’s distributions of XRP are investment contracts while maintaining that bitcoin and ether are not securities, the Commission is picking virtual currency winners and losers, destroying U.S.-based, consumer-friendly innovation in the process.

E. This case is distinguishable from the Initial Coin Offering (“ICO”) and/or Simple Agreements for Future Tokens (“SAFTs”) cases that the Commission has brought previously, which involved no developed ecosystem or established utility for the underlying asset, and where the tokens were sold directly to purchasers by the issuer based on promises of profits and ongoing efforts that were articulated in white papers and other forms.

II. Factual Background

A. XRP is a fully functional currency that offers a better alternative to bitcoin.

  1.  XRP is a widely adopted digital asset based on an open-source blockchain technology, with an extremely robust, fully-functioning currency market. XRP consistently ranks among the top three virtual currencies by market capitalization—alongside bitcoin and ether, the two Chinese-controlled virtual currencies that the SEC has stated are not securities.
  2.  XRP has been trading in secondary markets since 2013.
  3.  The secondary market is massive—approximately $700 billion to $1 trillion in total trading volume since 2013—and operates separate and apart from Ripple.
  4.  XRP is traded between fiat and other virtual currencies on more than 200 exchanges globally, the vast majority of which have no connection to Ripple whatsoever.
  5.  XRP transactions take place on the XRP Ledger (“XRPL”), a decentralized, cryptographic ledger powered by a network that is not controlled or owned by any one party. The XRPL has successfully recorded hundreds of millions of transactions for over eight years without error or dispute.
  6.  Through the consensus process, validators must agree on specific transactions for inclusion in the blockchain. During consensus, each server evaluates proposals from a specific set of trusted validators, or Unique Node List (“UNL”). Users are free to use any UNL they prefer and anyone can run a node or validator. Ripple does not control anywhere near a supermajority of validators and changes to the Ledger have been adopted despite Ripple’s dissent (e.g., a recent change adding virtual checks that Ripple opposed).
  7.  The consensus validation process prevents any single actor from unilaterally owning or controlling the XRPL. Consensus enables XRP to serve as a faster and cheaper means of closing transactions compared to other digital assets, and largely eliminates the risk of centralized control by any one party.

B. Ripple is a responsible and transparent actor.

  1.  Years before the SEC’s July 2017 DAO Report, Ripple relied on expert advice and regulatory pronouncements that XRP was a virtual currency and not a security.
  • (a) In 2015, DOJ and FinCEN settled a case with Ripple and determined that XRP was a convertible virtual currency and Ripple was a money transmitter of XRP. The settlement required Ripple’s XRP transactions to comply with laws that do not apply to securities transactions.
  1.  
  2.  Since 2017, around 90% of Ripple’s XRP holdings have been held in an inaccessible escrow, which Ripple voluntarily proposed and cannot unilaterally terminate. The escrow is intended to standardize the supply of XRP that could come from Ripple, even during times when the price and volumes of XRP have increased.
  3. Ripple’s On Demand Liquidity product (“ODL”) uses XRP as a bridge currency to address inefficiencies in cross-border payments, allowing for dramatic improvements over legacy payment systems.
  • (a) Traditional cross border transfers typically take two days to complete, whereas ODL transactions complete in minutes.
  • (b) ODL provides cost savings by freeing up capital held in correspondent bank accounts and significantly reduces transaction costs associated with remittance payments.
  • (c) Both the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) have recognized the consumer benefits of ODL.
  • (d) ODL incentives were offered to develop a better experience for customers and to drive scaling and adoption of ODL. Short-term incentives are consistent with standard practices to stimulate growth in network markets. The incentives and rebates have decreased significantly since 2019.
  • (e) Extensive data analysis shows that ODL-related announcements have not impacted the price of XRP.

 

C. Ripple’s XRP sales were only ever a minute fraction of overall XRP trading. In the past, Ripple’s sales were mostly done through foreign market makers who brokered blind bid/ask trades on certain cryptocurrency exchanges, the vast majority of which are located outside the United States, or via OTC transactions mainly to institutional, third-party entities via contracts that did not include any promise of profits or promise to increase the price of XRP. Ripple’s sales are now limited to sales to ODL customers for use in the product.

  1. Ripple’s sales were consistently a fraction of one percent of the overall trading volume. Throughout 2018, Ripple’s XRP sales represented only 0.095% to 0.43% of the global XRP volume, and, in the first quarter of 2019, those sales amounted to 0.22% of the overall trading volume.
  2.  Ripple took precautions not to impact XRP’s price and to minimize any perception that it would do so.
  3.  Ripple stopped all programmatic sales and almost all OTC sales in September 2019. In May 2020, Ripple began selling XRP to customers for use in connection with ODL after fully disclosing to the SEC its intent to do so.

D. XRP is used as a currency by as many as 150 third party commercial and consumer applications for a variety of purposes.

E. Extensive data analysis shows that XRP’s price correlates to that of the other leading digital assets—not to Ripple’s announcements or news about its business. The data show that XRP’s price has not been impacted by Ripple’s public announcements which means the market does not believe that Ripple’s efforts translate into an increase in the price of XRP.

  1.  Unlike prior ICO enforcement actions, this case will be the first time that the SEC has to refute years of trading data that fundamentally undermines its theory.

III. The Howey Test.

A. As a threshold matter, it would be unprecedented to bring a case against Ripple based on XRP sales that took place before the July 2017 DAO Report, especially in a case where the SEC is not alleging fraudulent conduct.

B. XRP is a currency, as the DOJ and FinCEN determined in 2015.

  1.  Currencies are excluded from the statutory definition of a security. Digital assets like XRP that operate as a medium of exchange, unit of account, and/or a store of value are properly categorized as currencies.
  2. XRP’s functional characteristics and longstanding utility as a replacement for fiat currency require that it be categorized as a currency and not a security. XRP trades in a robust currency market, with massive volumes of traders, the vast majority of whom have never transacted with Ripple. C. XRP does not satisfy the Howey test.

1. Before even getting to the Howey analysis, XRP is not an investment contract because there is no “contract” underlying any “investment contract.”

  • (a) We are not aware of a single case in the more than 70 years since Howey that has found an investment contract absent a contract or privity between the buyer and seller. Here, the vast majority of XRP trading has taken place on the secondary market, wholly independent of Ripple, with no contract or privity with Ripple.

2. Ripple is not a common enterprise of XRP purchasers.

  • (a) Horizontal commonality requires that proceeds from sales be pooled to support the investment that will result in the distribution of profits.
  • (a) There has been no “pooling” here as required by horizontal commonality.
  • (b) Other than a small fraction of one percent, XRP trading did not and does not involve Ripple and therefore the proceeds of those sales were not, and could not be, pooled by Ripple.
  • (c) Ripple’s sales of XRP into the secondary market were made to purchasers who did not know from whom they were buying (and Ripple did not know to whom it was selling) and thus there was no pooling of proceeds, as required by the law.
  • (d) The Second Circuit has rejected broad vertical commonality and has not explicitly adopted strict vertical commonality.
  • (e) In any event, there is no vertical commonality here where the fortunes of XRP holders are demonstrably not intertwined with Ripple and its efforts, but instead hinge on independent market forces as it does here, which is overwhelmingly supported by the data.

3. There is no reasonable expectation of profits by XRP purchasers based on the efforts of Ripple.

  •  (a) Ripple does not and has not promised to increase XRP’s prices in public statements. Ripple’s overall messaging regarding XRP has been entirely consistent with that of a company that uses a currency for payment solutions. Ripple has made clear that its efforts relate to increasing the liquidity of the XRP market for ODL’s benefit and not to increase the price of XRP.
  • (i) The SEC’s focus has been on the subjective intent of the XRP purchaser. But subjective intent does not control. Rather, courts consistently hold that the test is an objective inquiry into what the purchasers were actually offered or promised.
  • (ii) In other words, the mere fact that a purchaser believes a party may undertake efforts to drive an asset’s value is not enough to satisfy the Howey test, especially when that other party is not obligated to act in the way that the purchaser hopes and especially when the purchaser is a downstream, secondary market participant with no relationship or privity with the other party.
  • (b) Ripple’s interaction with the third party XRP community does not constitute “efforts of others.” (i) The XRPL’s decentralized nature precludes XRP purchasers from reasonably relying on Ripple’s efforts to increase the price of XRP.
  • (c) Ripple’s promotion of ODL—and other products—is related to its business, not to XRP. Ripple is trying to increase demand for its products, some of which use XRP and others which do not, not the price of XRP. (i) Extensive data analysis demonstrates that XRP purchasers neither rely on Ripple’s efforts nor reasonably view XRP as an investment in Ripple. (ii) Most ODL transactions are demand-neutral (each involves the purchase and sale of the exact same amount of XRP in a short time) and therefore do not impact the price of XRP.
  • (d) Ripple’s sales to its customers for use in ODL do not, and cannot, violate Section

5. When a purchaser is not “‘attracted solely by the prospects of a return’ on his investment . . . [but] is motivated by a desire to use or consume the item purchased . . . the securities laws do not apply.” Forman. (e) Ripple’s XRP holdings do not convert XRP into an investment contract nor do they mean that XRP holders have a right to rely on Ripple’s efforts or that any such reliance is reasonable.

(i) Many entities own large amounts of commodities and participate heavily in the commodities markets—Exxon holds large quantities of oil, De Beers owns large quantities of diamonds, Bitmain and other Chinese miners own a large percentage of outstanding bitcoin. And all three have an interest that may be aligned with purchasers of the underlying asset. But no one credibly argues that those substantial holdings convert those commodities or currencies into securities.

D. Information asymmetries are not part of the Howey analysis, but in any event, there are no material asymmetries between Ripple and XRP holders.

  • 1. Ripple has been transparent about its activity in the XRP market by publishing quarterly XRP Market Reports, disclosing its incentive programs, and being incredibly transparent in other respects.
  • 2. Extensive data analysis demonstrates that Ripple’s disclosures and press releases do not move the price of XRP, indicating the market does not consider news about Ripple material.

IV. Policy reasons counsel against finding XRP to be an investment contract.

A. Innovation in the cryptocurrency industry will be fully ceded to China. The Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchains are highly susceptible to Chinese control because both are subject to simple majority rule, whereas the XRPL prevents comparable centralization.

B. An expansive application of Howey will have a chilling effect on the entire blockchain industry. This would make it impossible for any company to develop and promote a digital asset without running afoul of the securities laws, even where the company has never sold the asset as an investment, like Ripple.

C. No foreign regulator has determined that XRP is a security. In fact just the opposite is true. The U.S. would be the unfortunate outlier.

The information provided is pretty strong but the asset itself will fall. I sold with a huge lost all my remain coins of XRP and I don't see a fruitful and positive future for Ripple in the next 6 months at least. It drops as we speak and it will be very hard for people to choose it again, after thr SEC lawsuit. 

So my suggestion is sell and focus on other opportunities. 

Best of luck! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dario_o said:

Is it plausible for Ripple to obtain 2 separate trials?

1 for price manipulation by BG and CL and 1 trial for the security or not issue? 

Well their lawsuit is only relevant if xrp is a security . If it is not , they can sell whatever of their private possessions they want without the fed gov saying jack unless it’s a controlled substance 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.